Think Like a Man Too

Siize Punabantu

Creating comedy for an audience is probably one of the most difficult tasks in entertainment. Comedy is a complex genre. Different kinds of comedy appeal to different audiences and for the delivery guy "the funny" is a tightrope that it isn't always easy to stay on.  People who master this art often become very successful in this genre, but don’t be fooled, comedy is just like maths, physics and grammar, it has to be diligently researched, written, tested then applied. This is the tightrope. Comedy like any other genre depends squarely on staying on the tightrope. Writers create the tightrope, it’s the “right” material that the funny man delivers. What a smart comedian calls off the cuff or ad lib is a joke they studied, mulled over and rehearsed - then executed like they’d just thought of it. Ad lib and off-the-cuff will instead consist of reaching into a repertoire of funny and tweaking it to make it seem as though it just occurred. Comedy is hard work, anyone who thinks it’s easy and corners can be cut just because its funny is delusional.


Think Like a Man Too (TLM 2) was fun to watch. Admittedly as is the case with many sequels expectations were high. TLM 2 felt a little more like a chick flick, which may not suite a male audience too well. When the New Edition song "Poison" for instance came on it felt kinda odd, can a cute chick really pull off miming a male voice like that?  Shouldn't this have been performed by the guys? Why would a girl be happy to be called something demeaning like “Poison.....the crew used to do her" and even proudly sing about it? This is a guy song. The girls could have been given a performance from any number of '90s girl groups that had us guys mesmerised back then like SWV, En Vogue or Jade. I can imagine the guys trying to call the girls (who are in da club) after a spat, the tone for each digit sounds, one of their mobile's brrrrrs and the response on the other end is, "Hi, we're not in right now, but if you leave your name and number..." That track by the group Jade intros and the girls perform this (wow, wouldn't that be a treat!). Then the guys feeling jilted in their respective place, perform New Edition's Poison in response. This approach seems to add up.


There are comedy legends like Peter Sellers, Robin Williams (MHSRIP), Richard Pryor to mention a few and that comedic giant of my youth, Eddie Murphy. Kevin Heart in TLM2 has significant talent and can learn a lot from studying greats like Eddie Murphy. Eddie earned his stripes doing slapstick comedy on Saturday Night Live then evolved into more mature comedy on the stand up stage in Delirious and Raw, in movies like Beverly Hills Cop and 48 Hours. Eddie's humour became smooth, he always seemed relaxed and epitomized a new kind of cool and casual that it was easy for the audience to get comfortable with. Eddie's edge is that he wasn't trying hard to make you laugh, he was telling you a story or pointing something out that just happened to be funny. Another of Eddie's trump cards, is that often even when his jokes might hurt a group in society or someone's feelings he somehow managed to incorporate the respect he had for the group or person that would bare the brunt of what he was saying softening the sting. Though he poked fun at Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder in his sketches the two held no grudges and were able to laugh at themselves through him; this takes insightful wording and delivery. This ability is creative as most careless comics will actually injure people’s feelings or polarize the audience in a negative way that may be funny, but that is not endearing. Eddie's method for the most part often made him endearing, which is why diverse audiences would want to see him perform over and over again.


After a long hiatus Eddie Murphy returned to the big screen with the movie Dream Girls, then a string of comedies. Eddie has never had a problem delivering laughter to an audience. However, he should be very careful who prepares his material for the stage and screen – the “tight-rope”. There is certainly a mismatch between the kind of humour Eddie delivered for his comeback and the old-school humour he used to bring. The steady deterioration in material in Eddie's craft could be noticed in Nutty Professor II. In Nutty Professor I Buddy Love though the “Jekyll” side of the Nutty Professor was endearing. The first flaw that became evident in Nutty Professor II was Buddy Love's humour was meaner and more denigrating, more hurtful than it was funny. This was a sharp  departure from Eddie's style. In addition to this in II the persona of Buddy Love was strenuously over the top, another departure from Eddie’s cool, easy going method of delivery. The moment a comedian becomes mean or vindictive, he or she unwittingly loses a significant proportion of listeners whether they like it or not. This was a major departure from Eddie's style which upto that juncture had been on point. Eddie is usually cool and collected, Buddy Love in II wasn't, Eddie is usually mindful not to be a genuinely hurtful and vindictive comedian sometimes by rounding off what he delivers with positive traits about the target of his funny. Buddy Love in II was just plain nasty. This was no longer Eddie. Unfortunately when Eddie returned after a hiatus this new style persisted from Norbit onward; this time making fun of overweight people in a nasty and hurtful way. As a comedian, its important to remember that if you tell a joke that is hurtful to a person or segment, a large proportion of the audience will forget the joke but remember the hurt, associate this with you or your work and are likely not to want a seat in the audience to see your next project be it TV, movies or stand up. The new Eddie Murphy seemed to be trying too hard to be funny, the slapstick was too strained and overdone, it wasn’t his trademark “clever” endearing humour, he was focusing too hard on being comedic rather than connecting with the audience. He needed to relax, bring back that super self assured persona and that thoughtful, intelligent look he gets in his eye just before he breaks into a laugh. The writing for Eddie’s comedies was very poor and this is a problem since comedy depends heavily on well researched material. The best example of the kind of humour Eddie should stick to is that in Beverly Hills Cop I and Delirious. Be consistent, don’t stray from the funny by trying to outdo yourself because it becomes forced and less interesting and don’t try to be superfunny by being hurtful – it doesn’t work. For Eddie to regain his cool first he has to find the right seasoned, recognised and professional talent to research, write and build the material for his stand up and movies, ensure its appropriate for audiences. Comedy is nothing without tight material to work on and with. He then needs to spend time with the material, rehearse delivery before a small audience that will be his sounding-board and give him feedback until he is comfortable with it, forget the bull**** that you were born funny or are naturally funny that delusionals lap up, this is a job just like any other:  rehearse, polish and tweak the craft then make it look like it “just happened”. This is how Eddie will find his “cool” again. Investment in the material will give him the confidence to go from Delirious, Raw to his next stage project, “Raucous” for example; Beverly Hills Cop III will definitely need this serious approach. Stand up is useful for Eddie to reconnect with his audience and naturally enhances the work he does in movies.


Kevin Hart seems to be on the same path to greatness as Eddie. Kevin needs to be very careful about his ad lib humour. Even if he is going to “appear” to wing it he has to ensure that there is logic in a sketch where the humour is slapstick. If the director expects to just point the camera at a comedian with no script and preparation this is unprofessional and not good for the box office. The producers and director are then placing too much pressure on the comedian, in fact a seasoned director and comedian would reject this approach to producing a comedy. Not that it can’t be done, but there is nothing special about comedy, like any other genre it needs to be carefully researched, scripted and planned before it is executed. Comedians who appear to purely ad lib can only do so successfully if they have a plethora of methods, from their experience, for turning situations into comedy they can draw on. Nevertheless, even this may often come off as a sketch that’s funny but the humour feels forced since there’s a lot of stuttering, pointless gesturing and disjointed interaction with other actors or props. Comedians whether on stage or in movies should insist on seasoned specialist writers for the comedy segments, on a well developed script for the funny and the logical process that leads to the funny, only then should they tweak the funny by altering or adding to it something their experience tells them will help with execution. The funny is always best served against a serious or stern backdrop. If the director paints a green brush stroke against a green background the colour is unlikely to pop. Bringing the funny is often like this. Breaking wind in the midst of a noisy frolicking group is not the same as the sound of breaking wind in the pin-drop silence of stern executives in an elevator. Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in Dumb and Dumber don’t just “poop” funny; it has to be researched, choreographed and properly executed so its funny, forget pure ad lib, Dumb and Dumber takes talented actors to make. Taking comedic works seriously is why not all comedians are “funny” in real life, bringing the funny is no different from delivering the emotion in a drama or the serious in a thriller. It’s work which is more successful the more seriously it’s taken. In this vein Kevin needs to pay close attention to the process that leads to a funny sketch, the logic in the wording, the subject matter; this aspect needs to be tighter since he has already mastered methods of delivery.

The problem with sequels that producers repeatedly make is that, like kids in a candy store,  they spend too much time and money on the bon-bons they are drooling for but couldn’t afford at first, trying to make things bigger and badder, flashier and glitzier when they should instead be spending more of this time and money on the quality of the writing to ensure there is novelty,  it’s a new story, its believable, the dialogue is tight, meaningful and the interaction between actors moves or skips across a significant array of sensible, sequential events or scenes that culminate in a meaningful ending.  Behind TLM1 was the knowledge from the book written by Steve Harvey, consequently there is plenty of depth for the audience to dine on; every scene has meaning that ties into the lesson being learned or taught; TLM1 is like a course in defensive driving. TLM2 is more like a joy ride. In a defensive driving lesson there is course material to follow. The instructor teaches the student how to handle the car, its exciting, scary sometimes but at the end of it you learn something. In a joy ride there is nothing but the thrill. Plenty can go wrong. In a sequel the producers and directors often want a joy ride. Unfortunately a joy ride will come at the expense of the franchise. The subject being taught, “course material”, book or knowledge base is the backbone of every script and screenplay; without this research or grounding the movie is a gamble at the box office.

 There aren’t enough movies like TLM out there. The actresses for instance are beauties at the top of their craft. However, in TLM2 the story-lines for each couple were a little too thin, there isn’t enough depth in their dialogue. Regina Hall seemed to have the lion’s share of the meaningful side of the story while Meagan, Taraji and Gabrielle have roles that seem less substantive this time round. Consequently, Terence Jenkins, who is great on E News and in this movie,  has a significant role while Jerry, Michael, Romany and Gary also have that problem of roles with less depth. The cause of this is not enough work on the overall arch of the story for it to lend more depth to a dialogue that could have been richer, more developed and more relevant. Too much focus is applied to the slapstick humour as well as the glitz and glamour of venues rather than the stellar talent of the actors. To have this kind of talent and a dodgy script is a crime. The producers have to sit down and think -other than a wedding, funeral or reunion what other approach or storyline will make movies like this a success for a wide audience? The best approach is to take each actor and have them playing roles in their respective individual jobs, then as they deal with important work and clients by coincidence their roles begin to cross lines. For instance Taraji takes an important client out for lunch to close a deal where Michael has made an unscheduled stop to help the head chef develop a new menu; the restaurant is in a major building that also houses a technology company. The client is making an investment in the technology company that Jerry comes to learn through his work is a shell company engaged in shady contracts that place the company he works for and Taraji at risk. He alerts Romany who plays a role where he works for the FBI and asks him to look into it. The movie turns into a “Mission Impossible” like approach where each couple and each actor has to play an important role to solve and resolve the dangerous situation they have gotten themselves into. This real danger and thriller is the backdrop against which great comedic scenes can be written for Kevin and the rest of the cast until all the major actors become an important link in the unfolding story. Their personal relationships are tested by how far they willing to go out on a limb, break the rules, risk their lives and careers for people they love to unravel the dangers and mysteries surrounding the investor. This would make a great story with many life lessons in line with the approach used in the TLM franchise. Importantly its an approach that can be used again and again to sustain the franchise and interest from the audience.The producers should first and foremost work to produce a great script, brilliant dialogue and invest in the best writing talent available for the next TLM to pop; don't cut corners in this aspect.

Since Floyd Mayweather had a cameo appearance in TLM2 this analysis can't end without a word about that recent reading debacle. When Floyd had difficulty reading live on radio recently many thought it hilarious, and the incident became the laugh of many a conversation. Was this really funny though? How many dyslexic kids and adults listening to the radio show felt the mockery dumped on Floyd was being dumped on them? The ability to read well is often about confidence, and this event will most certainly erode the confidence of those who have a condition that makes reading troublesome or those who just have difficulty reading out loud for any reason. Well, it was funny for the majority of people, but this is not the point. The point is how do people handle painful jokes especially those targeted at them? Floyd should imagine that crestfallen kid who the whole class is chuckling at as he or she struggles to transform script into words and be that kid's champion; maybe that’s why all of this even happened. Everybody at some point in their life will be teased and laughed at about something to their face, it may be written, on radio, television or behind their back; no one has an absolute control over how others behave towards them. However, they do have control over how they react. When a comedic jab lands fairly on the chin, the best response is to smile and admit yeah, you got me, now that's was a good jab and keep on boxing. The only way to dodge humiliation and put a damper on those who make fun of you, is to sometimes accept the funny and never take yourself so seriously that  a joke hurts or blinds your wit otherwise you will be unable to take it, turn it around and come out on top. This is an opportunity for Floyd to work with charities that help children and adults with reading difficulties or to form his own and become the international face for never giving up when you face a challenge associated with reading; though he made mistakes when he read live on radio he kept starting over to get it right. This is how he wins in boxing and difficulty reading is just like any other problem or opponent in the ring a determined boxer can take down by not giving up even when it gets tough. By championing reading for those who face this difficulty Floyd will transform what may have come across as an embarrassing moment into a learning experience and he can become champion not just in the ring, but a real champion for every kid who faces reading difficulties.

Good-bye Joan Rivers, that bitter honey-sweet laughter still echoes and goes with you....to loftier places.

Peace.